Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
- From: "Michael Rys" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:59:27 -0800
- Thread-index: AcOznPC7XhPN7DoDSAqY7PrdeqEq8gAAR7Fg
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
Len, I think you are now shifting the discussion (not a bad thing, mind
you - I think we have beaten the horse to dead and back by now) from
talking about the goal of the binary XML Workshop and binary
representations of XML towards the impact certain vocabularies of XML in
certain contexts (such as rich client programming) will have. That
vertical discussion is certainly interesting, but as Dare already noted,
neither he nor I really work on the vertical stuff. I am a plumber :-)
I think it was good that XAML is an XML vocabulary. Whether this is an
area that should be standardized today (probably not), later (maybe) or
never is a separate discussion and should be done with the right people
involved in the discussion.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:43 PM
> To: Michael Rys; Dare Obasanjo; email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was
> Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
> Since I replied to Dare on most of these points, I'll snip the
> parts I agree with.
> From: Michael Rys [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> [Michael Rys] Not quite. Most areas that you see some form of binary
> emerge (inside and outside of Microsoft) are normally tightly-coupled
> applications. My and Dare's point is that you should not expose the
> binary XML at the general interop level. If you want to expose the
> binary format as an additional format, then your application and
> wants to talk to you will have to deal with the added complexity. But
> should not define a binary format as the W3C-blessed binary interop
> format. Because this in the end will lead to some areas to claim XML
> conformance while never-ever dealing with XML proper (would be kind of
> like MS saying, Word's .doc format is just XML).
> [len] There seem to be two trains of thought:
> 1. Binaries exposed will lead to complexity. As long as that
> is tightly coupled to the platform (XAML for MS, XUL for something
> else, whatever for whatever else), the complexity is contained
> to each platform. One has to choose one and stick to it. Ok
> inside the firewall, but a problem outside it.
> 2. A single binary won't work. We agree. Claiming conformance
> to one will lead to proof of conformance issues. On the other hand,
> that is true of any binary for any application, isn't it? The
> problem is having multiple client applications if these have to
> interoperate across platforms and more complex if over the wire
> because one can't predict the platform.
> > What will be the result of having a binary of XAML and a binary
> > for SQL Server? No big whoop because these can be said to
> > be in their own application space. But when there is a binary
> > for XAML and XUL and SQL Server and Oracle, now interop is
> > being compromised and the content on the web is balkanizing.
> >[Michael Rys] Only if people are going to start defining interop on
> >level. Which will (hopefully) not happen if we have that many
> >formats, since XML is the one format that is defined as the
> >"interoperable standard format". See it as a divide and conquer
> >that attempts to work in favor of the XML standard.
> Again, true of XML itself, the syntax. Not true where there are
> multiple XML application languages for rich clients.
> >Michael Rys] If, OTOH, the W3C defines 5 or 6 binary "standard"
> >we certainly will get balkanization, since people will abandon XML
> >tie themselves to one or two of the binary format (since it is now a
> >"W3C standard").
> If they do that for one application type, yes. If there is one
> binary per application type, no. What we seem to be heading for
> is a situation where the multiple application languages per
> application types are causing that, and the binaries just
> add to the problem.
> [Michael Rys] Is my reply clearer?
> Yes. I think I understand the position. Application level interop
> pure XML interop (the syntax thing) most, I think will agree, are
> very different levels of interoperation.